Íæż½ã½ã

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

The Tribunal found that the non-extension of the Applicant’s appointment in UNAMI was not a termination but her mission assignment simply came to an end after the maximum two years. The Applicant’s challenge of the administrative decision to restrict her mission assignment to the maximum of two years is not receivable as she failed to request for management evaluation. Receivability - Even if by any stretch of reasoning it was open to the Applicant to challenge the conditions of her mission assignment which she had accepted on 28 January 2013, time began to run for her to challenge that...

UNDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant’s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, UNDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. UNDT awarded the Applicant three months’ net base salary as moral damages. UNDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. UNDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant’s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

The context of the impugned decision was important because it was central to the Applicant’s case that the decision to exclude her from the comparative review exercise which led to her separation, was made in bad faith, and that it stemmed from the conflict surrounding the decision to transfer her from the CAS Office to the Supply Section. The Applicant’s case was that she was unlawfully excluded from the comparative review pool for Warehouse Assistants. The Applicant was transferred to the Supply Section despite her repeated protests and the explanation given was that the move was made to...

As the Applicant withdrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The offences alleged in the instant case were of a complex nature and were framed in a manner that required several discrete facts to be established so that a sanction of separation could be justified. Each element of the allegations of misconduct the Administration found to have been established was therefore subject to review. With the account of one person to be weighed against another, the Respondent had to properly consider issues of credibility on the record. There was no indication that the Respondent considered the two possible motives. The Applicant’s case was that the disciplinary...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the UNDT was not receivable.

Staff members are entitled to due process in relation to their complaints, not to a particular finding against another staff member or to a particular decision by the Organization towards another staff member. The Applicant’s claims have all been comprehensively addressed by the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant failed to establish a basis for which further remedies should be granted. The application is rejected in its entirety.

The Applicant’s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.